Aisha's age is not the only thing criticizable about Muhammad, as can be seen in the following quotes of the canonical texts:

The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

The Quran says:
5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

The Quran says:
24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah’s law]. (Hilali and Khan).

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)

The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas [Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of traditions] who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Messenger forbad it, saying, ‘Do no punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah Messenger, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’" (Bukhari, Apostates, no. 6922; online source)

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.") (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261)

As quoted, Muhammad's behaviour is not the behaviour of a worthy spiritual leader. He is not to be worshiped, acording to islam, but he is to be emulated.

"He turns his mind away from those phenomena and, having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' " - Jhana Sutta

I have noted the “canonical” and classical sources, even tracing the origin of the story. I am not paid to defend Islam and it probably needs no defense from people like me. I doubt any more light will be shed by my repeating the 1,000 and more years old and ongoing extensive debunking of this sort of thing.

When bizarre figures like Robert Bruce Spencer, are quoted (UK Home Office barred Spencer, self declared expert on Islam, from travel to the UK in 2013 for 3 to 5 years for "making statements that may foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence" ) the intentions of these postings is made clear. It is depressing that this forum has provided a platform for such bigotry and intolerance.

It is depressing that this forum has provided a platform for such bigotry and intolerance.

Why is it bigotry and intolerance to make well-reasoned arguments for or against something?

What makes Islam so special and protected that its set of ideas, traditions, practices and beliefs are beyond reasonable critique, so much so that anyone who would dare to critique them in such a way is instantly deemed bigoted and intolerant? Can Islam, its founders and its practices not stand on their own merits like everything else, without PC protections and accusations of "hate speech" (and associated punishments) against those who dare to disagree with it?

It is depressing that this forum has provided a platform for such bigotry and intolerance.

Why is it bigotry and intolerance to make well-reasoned arguments for or against something?

What makes Islam so special and protected that its set of ideas, traditions, practices and beliefs are beyond reasonable critique, so much so that anyone who would dare to critique them in such a way is instantly deemed bigoted and intolerant? Can Islam, its founders and its practices not stand on their own merits like everything else, without PC protections and accusations of "hate speech" (and associated punishments) against those who dare to disagree with it?

It's a curious situation indeed...

Metta,
Paul.

Probably because most people who 'critique' Islam are not interested in critiquing Islam at all. That is just excuse to demonize Muslims. The proof is right here in this thread - they talk about Mohammad and Aisha, whether she was too young etc. Now let's say Mohammad was a pervert. Let's say Aisha was a child. Now what you have accomplished? You've managed to create a (false) perception in the minds of 21st century people that most Muslims living today don't belong here, and instead belong to a primitive age.

So by exposing Mohammad, you haven't done anything extraordinary or scholarly. You've simply created a certain stereotype of the average Muslim, and so people will at a subconscious level associate just about all Muslims with child marriage, perversion, etc. But then this is what these critics of Islam want to begin with, right?

The proof is right here in this thread - they talk about Mohammad and Aisha, whether she was too young etc. Now let's say Mohammad was a pervert. Let's say Aisha was a child. Now what you have accomplished? You've managed to create a (false) perception in the minds of 21st century people that most Muslims living today don't belong here, and instead belong to a primitive age.

That's an interesting conflation on your part. I've seen no one saying Muslims are automatically barbaric just because aspects of Islamic doctrine and history are. In fact, many Muslims (and ex-Muslims) have the courage to stand up to such practices and insist upon reform. Can we therefore not critique female genital mutilation, stonings, child brides, Sharia Law, throwing homosexuals off cliffs and buildings etc. just because indirectly, someone's feelings might get hurt? You do know that most of the victims of Islam are actually Muslim, don't you?

If so, we do indeed live in crazy times, where the coddling of feelings is prioritized over the right to life and the right to not be mutilated, enslaved, stoned, punished for being raped etc.

Why is it bigotry and intolerance to make well-reasoned arguments for or against something?

It isn't. However, something less than "well-reasoned arguments" are mixed in among what is being presented here with regard to Islam.

What makes Islam so special and protected that its set of ideas, traditions, practices and beliefs are beyond reasonable critique,

Nothing.

... so much so that anyone who would dare to critique them in such a way is instantly deemed bigoted and intolerant?

Is that what is happening? Not sure the discussion is quite so black and white.

Can Islam, its founders and its practices not stand on their own merits like everything else,

Yes.

... without PC protections and accusations of "hate speech" (and associated punishments) against those who dare to disagree with it?

I believe this is the first mention of "hate speech."

One issue here is the image of Buddhism that we all present to others when Islam and other faiths are essentially slandered, for lack of a better word, through comments that have little or nothing to do with the actual merits of the religion. I may be as guilty as others of inadvertently speaking in this dismissive manner about other religions, but I am becoming more aware of the damage this can do.

Asking whether Muhammad or Jesus or Bahá'u'lláh or any other central figure of a major world religion is "worthy of respect" is probably not the most effective way to discover "what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies."

O Atula! Indeed, this is an ancient practice, not one only of today: they blame those who remain silent, they blame those who speak much, they blame those who speak in moderation. There is none in the world who is not blamed.

There never was, there never will be, nor is there now, a person who is wholly blamed or wholly praised.

I have noted the “canonical” and classical sources, even tracing the origin of the story. I am not paid to defend Islam and it probably needs no defense from people like me. I doubt any more light will be shed by my repeating the 1,000 and more years old and ongoing extensive debunking of this sort of thing.

When bizarre figures like Robert Bruce Spencer, are quoted (UK Home Office barred Spencer, self declared expert on Islam, from travel to the UK in 2013 for 3 to 5 years for "making statements that may foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence" ) the intentions of these postings is made clear. It is depressing that this forum has provided a platform for such bigotry and intolerance.

The Sahih Al Bukhari and the Sahih Muslim are canonical. You cannot deny this. It is even more so with the Quran, which I also quoted. Quoting original sources cannot be distortion and bile. On the other hand, quoting Robert Spencer is not the most conciliatory thing to do, I'll admit. But I rather have truth with a rough edge to it, than pleasant sounding lies. Ill will is easy to detect, but lies are not, which is why lies are so dangerous. If you weigh the effect of unpleasant truths on the world against the effect of pleasant lies, you will find that lies are far more devastating. For exampe, if the UK authorities claim that Robert Spencer is more dangerous than the hundreds of ISIS jihadists that have returned to the UK, then they are doing a clear disservice to the British citizens. Pointing this out is not bigotd or intolerant. It's common sense.

"He turns his mind away from those phenomena and, having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' " - Jhana Sutta

To clarify, any mention I've made in relation to hate speech and associated punishments, pertains to this example provided by Caodemarte...

Caodemarte wrote:When bizarre figures like Robert Bruce Spencer, are quoted (UK Home Office barred Spencer, self declared expert on Islam, from travel to the UK in 2013 for 3 to 5 years for "making statements that may foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence" ) the intentions of these postings is made clear.

... and not to anything specifically said in relation to this particular discussion. Thus, my point was a general one, moreso than being limited in scope to this topic.

L.N. wrote:Asking whether Muhammad or Jesus or Bahá'u'lláh or any other central figure of a major world religion is "worthy of respect" is probably not the most effective way to discover "what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies."

Maybe, but it does seem a reasonable lens by which to separate that which is meritorious, from that which is demeritorous. If much of Mohammad's legacy falls into the latter of those two categories, then I do not see how that outcome is a failing on the part of members of this forum.

AN 10.94 wrote:"I tell you, venerable sirs, that the Blessed One righteously declares that 'This is skillful.' He declares that 'This is unskillful.' Declaring that 'This is skillful' and 'This is unskillful,' he is one who has declared [a teaching]

MN98 wrote:"Birth makes no Brahmin, nor non-Brahmin, makes; it is life's doing that mold the Brahmin true. Their lives mold farmers, tradesmen, merchants, and serfs. Their lives mold robbers, soldiers, chaplains, and kings. By birth is not one an out-caste. By birth is not one a Brahmin. By deeds is one an out-caste. By deeds is one a Brahmin."

For exampe, if the UK authorities claim that Robert Spencer is more dangerous than the hundreds of ISIS jihadists that have returned to the UK, then they are doing a clear disservice to the British citizens. Pointing this out is not bigotd or intolerant. It's common sense.

Hi Modus
Do the UK authorities "claim that Robert Spencer is more dangerous than the hundreds of ISIS jihadists that have returned to the UK"?

The proof is right here in this thread - they talk about Mohammad and Aisha, whether she was too young etc. Now let's say Mohammad was a pervert. Let's say Aisha was a child. Now what you have accomplished? You've managed to create a (false) perception in the minds of 21st century people that most Muslims living today don't belong here, and instead belong to a primitive age.

That's an interesting conflation on your part. I've seen no one saying Muslims are automatically barbaric just because aspects of Islamic doctrine and history are. In fact, many Muslims (and ex-Muslims) have the courage to stand up to such practices and insist upon reform. Can we therefore not critique female genital mutilation, stonings, child brides, Sharia Law, throwing homosexuals off cliffs and buildings etc. just because indirectly, someone's feelings might get hurt? You do know that most of the victims of Islam are actually Muslim, don't you?

If so, we do indeed live in crazy times, where the coddling of feelings is prioritized over the right to life and the right to not be mutilated, enslaved, stoned, punished for being raped etc.

Metta,
Paul.

It's a subconscious process. If you repeatedly focus on the bad things in Islam (under the pretext of critiquing it, of course), then the general population will start believing that Muslims are just as bad. This conflation takes place at the subconscious level, so people may not even be aware of it happening.

For exampe, if the UK authorities claim that Robert Spencer is more dangerous than the hundreds of ISIS jihadists that have returned to the UK, then they are doing a clear disservice to the British citizens. Pointing this out is not bigotd or intolerant. It's common sense.

Hi Modus
Do the UK authorities "claim that Robert Spencer is more dangerous than the hundreds of ISIS jihadists that have returned to the UK"?

They have barred Robert Spencer from entering, while allowing hundreds of ISIS jihadists to return and remain in the UK. If they did not claim it, they did worse: they acted in acordance to it. Do you welcome ISIS jihadists in the UK, Mr Man?

"He turns his mind away from those phenomena and, having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' " - Jhana Sutta

For exampe, if the UK authorities claim that Robert Spencer is more dangerous than the hundreds of ISIS jihadists that have returned to the UK, then they are doing a clear disservice to the British citizens. Pointing this out is not bigotd or intolerant. It's common sense.

Hi Modus
Do the UK authorities "claim that Robert Spencer is more dangerous than the hundreds of ISIS jihadists that have returned to the UK"?

The point may be that banning a person from the UK for possible speech unpleasantries, but not banning many persons who actually plan & then murder - is a cowardly way to run a country.

For exampe, if the UK authorities claim that Robert Spencer is more dangerous than the hundreds of ISIS jihadists that have returned to the UK, then they are doing a clear disservice to the British citizens. Pointing this out is not bigotd or intolerant. It's common sense.

Hi Modus
Do the UK authorities "claim that Robert Spencer is more dangerous than the hundreds of ISIS jihadists that have returned to the UK"?

They have barred Robert Spencer from entering, while allowing hundreds of ISIS jihadists to return and remain in the UK. If they did not claim it, they did worse: they acted in acordance to it. Do you welcome ISIS jihadists in the UK, Mr Man?

So ""claim that Robert Spencer is more dangerous than the hundreds of ISIS jihadists that have returned to the UK"? was a straw man?

It's kind of ironic when you said in the same paragraph "lies are so dangerous". Why don't you stick to truth Modus?